Posted on 01/08/2023 5:21:29 PM PST by ARGLOCKGUY
Houston police are asking a bystander who shot a man 9 times and killed him while he was in the act of robbing people inside a Houston restaurant to come forward for questioning. FOX 26's Gabby Hart spoke with local criminal defense attorney Price Brown about if the incident could be considered self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
He would be a fool to come forward.
Hero might be a bit strong considering the head shot. And likely not the first time he shot someone. More like a hit man p.o.ed at having his dinner spoiled.
Regardless the patrons were all in fear of their lives from the robber who wont try that again.
After the shooter finished up inside and was walking out he threw a coffee cup at the body.
A prosecuter can make this look pretty ugly and a guy like this may have a nasty past, and may even be carrying illegally.
So what you’re saying is that it’s not okay to shoot someone who’s already dead?
Must have been a Rogue Gun according to Roger Goodman!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnetFL4Cc54&ab_channel=StevenCrowder
I was hoping for the Twinkie Defense!
“He handed the money back to everyone then split.”
The robber was a re-distributionist and the guy who shot was a counter-re-distributionist!
If he was still moving, then he may have been reaching for a weapon.
If he wasn’t moving, then he was already dead. Only charge might be desecrating a body or tampering with evidence.
DA should have to prove which shot killed him.
I guess I’m puzzled why nobody pointed that out.
The law has degenerated into mere pretense. It is simply a tool to keep the peasantry obedient to the authorities. The government is selectively declining to protect ordinary citizens from violent criminal predators and uses "the law" to enforce that policy.
It should not be that way, but it is. Criminals who belong to a protected class routinely get bailed out of jail before their victims get out of a hospital.
The robber got exactly what he deserved in this instance.
"The Law" is limited to what most people are willing to tolerate. Punishing people who stop a restaurant armed robbery is beyond what a great number of people are willing to tolerate.
The people who are running the "criminal justice system" are the ones who are responsible for the rise of "do it yourself" justice. This is not a stable or good condition.
I don’t think there’s much chance of a Harris County grand jury indicting him regardless of what the DA wants, and I’ll be surprised if Ogg pushes for an indictment.
After seeing the unedited video for the first time today, though, I can see why the cops want to talk to him. It does look like he delivered a coup de grace to the robber after he’s down and unarmed. I’m not complaining, though, and grand juries in Harris County have no-billed for far more questionable uses of force. (See Joe Horn or the guy who beat the child molester to death).
A couple personal notes: 1. I had a case against the lawyer they interviewed at the link. 5th year lawyer and a weird duck. He must be friends with the reporter, because I’m not sure why else he was consulted. He was generally right, though.
2. Funny coincidence that you pinged me about Ogg, because I ran into her when I was out with my 4-year-old today. We happened to be somewhere with the trifecta of no-carry signs (30.05, 30.06, and 30.07) and I was carrying a government-frame 1911 that was printing badly through my golf shirt. So of course the DA spots me there and comes over to give me a hug. If she noticed she didn’t say anything.
Not Guilty.
Oh HE!! No.🖕
Did you read the pot of the Deputy Sheriff who no one is looking for the shooter? No one cares, and no one thinks the guy would get convicted to begin with.
This was the alternate ending for Pulp Fiction. “And I will strike down on thee with great vengeance”
Gives a new meaning to “carry-out restaurant”.
got it Chief - if you need me I’ll be over there at the blackboard writing ‘dont say hey you’ 100 times...
Yes but.... he (defender) shot the perp several times and then walked over to the perp who was on the ground and by then unarmed did a head shot.
The shot or shots after there was no longer a threat = problem.
Shooter/defender didn’t empty his gun. He shot several times. Then shot more. Then that head shot.
He needs to shut up and lawyer up.
Good points and theory.
The shooter/defender seemed even casual with the final headshot - he’d been there before. As you said, likely back in Mexico.
He dindu nuffin'!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.